University of Rhode Island DigitalCommons@URI Philosophy Faculty Publications Philosophy 2014 Marketing Archaeology William H. Krieger University of Rhode Island, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/phl_facpubs The University of Rhode Island Faculty have made this article openly available. Please let us know how Open Access to this research benefits oy u. This is a pre-publication author manuscript of the final, published article. Terms of Use This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable towards Open Access Policy Articles, as set forth in our Terms of Use. Citation/Publisher Attribution Krieger, William H. "Marketing Archaeology." Ethic Theory Moral Prac, vol. 17, no. 5, 2014, pp. 923-939. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10677-014-9497-9 Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10677-014-9497-9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy at DigitalCommons@URI. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@URI. For more information, please contact [email protected]. “Marketing Archaeology” William H Krieger Ethical Theory and Moral Practice ABSTRACT In the 19th century, ‘scientific archaeologists’ split from their antiquarian colleagues over the role that provenience (context) plays in the value of an artifact. These archaeologists focus on documenting an artifact’s context when they remove it from its original location. Archaeologists then use this contextual information to place these artifacts within a particular larger assemblage, in a particular time and space. Once analyzed, the artifacts found in a site or region can be used to document, to understand, and explain the past. Given the central place of context for archaeological excavation, archaeologists have done everything in their power to combat the black market. Hoping to stem the tide, archaeologists have leveled attacks on those who excavate these materials, those who traffic in them, and those who purchase them. Unfortunately, despite decades of argument and legal wrangling, archaeologists have been unable to stop the black market. The purpose of this paper is to analyze this failure from the supply side (what archaeologists call looting) and to suggest better ways to engage other stakeholders to the benefit of most, if not all. INTRODUCTION Based on advances in archaeological theory and methods in the 20th and 21st century, archaeologists have been able to reconstruct more and more about the past. One of the changes that has made archaeology better at bringing the past to the present has been the introduction of artifact provenience to the field. An artifact’s provenience is its context, its location in relation to the material around it. This material disappears once the artifact is disturbed, which means that removing an artifact without recording its provenience effectively destroys the artifact’s value, its connection to its past. Since archaeologists believe that this knowledge belongs to humanity, archaeologists argue that the preservation of archaeological context is a universal duty. Given the difficulty in properly identifying and recording this information, archaeologists argue further that they must be present when artifacts are recovered. As such, archaeologists have been on the front lines of the fight against other diggers (also known as looters), who they argue are destroying the 1 “Marketing Archaeology” William H Krieger Ethical Theory and Moral Practice value of archaeological artifacts. Other groups, ranging from local diggers, indigenous cultural groups, tourists, and museums, to international artifact smugglers, hare argued that other values should govern the collection of artifacts. These groups have little to no interest in the protection of archaeological context, at times actively destroying these data to protect themselves from current antiquities laws. While this author believes firmly that archaeological context is invaluable to the collection, protection, and presentation of artifacts, he sees a problem with the central argument that the protection of context is an obvious, universal good. The goal of this paper is to show how and why archaeologists believe in the importance of context, why this argument has failed to convince other stakeholders, and how archaeologists might re-package their message in order to re-introduce context to “diggers” (for lack of a better, neutral term) in a way that all stakeholders would see as valuable, and thereby worthy of protection. Regardless of the characteristics we use to quantify their value, artifacts are valuable to a wide variety of stakeholders. Whether we speak of individuals hoping to increase status or wealth, governments trying to connect current empires to ancient cultures, or groups protecting monuments from destruction, people have devoted large amounts of time and resources to relics of the past. Humans collected antiquities in ancient times, as evident from investigations of graves full of materials that predated their owners, and collection continues today.1 Until recently, people primarily connected themselves to the past by obtaining artifacts. However, in the last 100 years, scientific archaeologists have come to use information from artifacts as data. Both the new archaeologists of the mid 20th century and contemporary scientists would largely agree that: “[w]hat distinguishes archaeology as a discipline – a subfield of anthropology, with an institutional base in museums and universities – is, above all else, a commitment to treat 1 Kersel (2011, 521-524) provides a very interesting study of the varied groups interested in antiquities. 2 “Marketing Archaeology” William H Krieger Ethical Theory and Moral Practice archaeological material as an empirical record of the cultural past” (Nicholas and Wylie 2009, 13-14). Archaeologists, concerned with context, imported stratigraphic analysis into archaeology in the 19th century. Stratigraphy, the study of layers of depositional material in order to understand changes in that material over time, would be used by archaeologists first to create relative chronologies (matching archaeological finds with contemporaneous material at a site or in a region) and then to set absolute chronologies (connecting these relative timelines to datable materials). This change in focus would have a major impact on archaeology.2 Archaeologists would now collect data related to an artifact’s find-spot (or provenience) and not just on the artifact itself.3 This contextual information can only be recorded in situ, at the time of excavation. As there is no way to re-situ an artifact, items collected without context in mind would have little value as artifacts. To archaeologist Morag Kersel, “Valuable information is gained through scientific excavation—information about associated architecture, finds, and mortuary contexts— which is all but destroyed by the illegal excavation process. According to archaeologists once artifacts enter the marketplace in their decontextualized state much of their relevant information and the knowledge that can be gained are lost” (Kersel 2011 526). Archaeologists spend considerable time combatting the black market (the unsanctioned extraction, transportation, and sale of artifacts). Archaeologists call the first stage of this process “looting” and they dislike it because, without a proper excavation, archaeologists cannot gather 2 Although some archaeologists were calling for theoretical changes in the 19th century, in the United States, scientific (or new) archaeology became a major movement in the 1960s. Schnapp 1997 provides a good overview of the factors leading to the shift from pre-theoretical to theoretical archaeology. Trigger 1989 presents accounts of the methodological and theoretical changes going on in the field during this time period. 3 Brodie 2012 rightly notes (on p 232) that provenience (find spot) and provenance (the chain of ownership of an artifact after its extraction) are terms that are routinely confused and misused. While misrepresenting either is problematic, understanding why archaeologists are more concerned with the former (for scientific reasons), while curators are more interested in the latter (for legal reasons), is important. 3 “Marketing Archaeology” William H Krieger Ethical Theory and Moral Practice knowledge about the past, knowledge that will benefit humankind. This ideal founds ethical and legal arguments designed to ‘protect’ these artifacts from being devalued by other parties. This position is juxtaposed with groups digging with other (read unethical) goals in mind. Much can be (and has been) written on each stage of the black market. Rather than focus on the export and sale of artifacts, this paper will work on the ‘supply side,’ by first questioning the means generally used by archaeologists to limit or end the looting side of the black market, and by then hopefully resetting the conversation in a way that will be more productive than it has been to date. To the former point, despite this author’s belief that we must do whatever we can to preserve an artifact’s find-spot, there is good evidence that there are reasonable people who do not share the archaeological view that there is a universal imperative to preserve archaeological context. To the latter, absent such an imperative, to record an artifact’s find-spot, then archaeologists must ask whether there is a way to (re) introduce the importance